Good thing truth is not based on polls or popular opinion. And I argue the reason there might be many who do not want a blanket ban on abortion is because they do not understand reality/science/fact. They have been indoctrinated with the rhetoric that denies the truth of the situation and has successfully caused a great deal of deception. This is unfortunate, but people can be educated.
You say that like the remining 20% aren't against abortion for purely religious reasons.
Improvements in science and technology continue to reveal to us amazing images of the baby in the womb. Kind of hard to deny what we can now see in 3D â€“ unless that is, we donâ€™t look. This is precisely why Planned Parenthood fights ultra sound requirements. They arenâ€™t really about informing the woman. For them, the less the woman knows/sees the better.
Right, because emotional blackmail is wrong.
Fortunately, some of us think this is horrible.
Unfortunately for the rest of humanity and women in particular though.
We are pro woman. In fact, we fight for both the woman having the baby and the woman in the womb.
There is no woman in the womb. And the woman whose womb you are referring to, don't appreciate you messing with their rights.
But donâ€™t worry her pretty little head about it. It is for her own good. You know best. You are making the world a better a place. Right?
Sex selected abortions are common. The truth is more girl babies are aborted than boy babies. I guess radical feminists arenâ€™t too distraught over this.
Right, we aren't, we are merely slightly distraught.
Also, more African American babies are aborted than white babies. Where is the outrage?
On your side, presumably. There is no reason to be outraged. Being outrage at the symptom is just a waste energy that could be spent fixing the cause.
Planned Parenthood specifically targets poorer areas. They push their mass sterilization agenda on the poor. I guess poor people shouldnâ€™t procreate. This is something their founder, Margaret Sanger actually believed. Disgusting.
Bringing up a baby is expensive, that much is a fact, and a good justification for an on-demand-abortion.
So, unless someone wants to argue against science and deny the facts, they may eventually realize abortion is anti woman and racist!
Or they might eventually realize banning abortion is anti woman and racist, but religious convictions are hard to shake.
The pro aborts have been quite successful with their dehumanizing attempts and use of rhetoric like â€œclump of cellsâ€�, â€œa parasiteâ€�, â€œMy body. My rightâ€�, â€œPlanned Parenthoodâ€�, â€œpro-choiceâ€�, etc.
It's easy to be successful when you have the facts on your side.
Racists and Naziâ€™s used similar tactics to present their enemy as not fully human.
And you used similar tactics to present cattle as food stock. *Shock face*
Human beings/entire classes of people were referred to as vermin, cockroaches, parasites, 3/5ths human, ignorant, inferior, etc. Compare that to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sangerâ€™s own words on pushing abortion and the pill on those she deemed inferior. Like Hitler, she believed she was helping to make a purer race...
And a whole bunch of religious conservatives agreed with her. Showing they never cared about the sanctity of lives, but the control of people they perceived to be inferior. They are morally flexible as long as it keeps the undesirables down.
This shows you do not understand what abortion is. I am opposed to abortion â€“ yes, even to save the life of the mother â€“ because there is no reason to perform an abortion in order to save the life of the mother. You are equating abortion to something other than it is.
Then the blood of Savita Halappanavar is on your hands.
Oh? Late-term they say? That sounded very much like they are conceding that intentionally killing a non-late-term unborn baby in an abortion is sometimes necessary to save a motherâ€™s life, doesn't it?
Nope. It is called a
Dilation and curettage (D&C)
You are mixing up medical terms. Again, the procedure you are referring to is called a D&C. A D&C is not abortion. A D&C is often used to remove the remains from a baby that died in utero.
And you have the nerve to call me out on semantics.
If the baby is already dead, then the procedure would not be referred to as an abortion. I could get a D&C if I have a miscarriage. I might have to get a D&C if I wasnâ€™t even pregnant, but there was something going on in my uterus. I might even have to get a D&C from a botched abortion. Or someone could even perform a D&C with the intent to cause an abortion. In this case, the D&C would be the method of abortion. However, in all the other cases above the D&C would not be the cause of the death of the baby. It is merely the procedure of clearing or cleaning out the uterus.
And when the something being cleared out is a baby, it's an abortion.
Cute. You merely help make my point. There is a difference between natural death and murder. You pretend since the end result is the same â€“ what is the difference. Of course, we all know the difference is huge. And one can get you 30 to life.
You are barking up the wrong tree, as I never denied that is a difference, all I said was, both are abortions. If I say cars and buses are both vehicles, would that trigger you to say I am pretending there is no difference between cars and buses?
Uuuh, no, sorry that simply isnâ€™t being intellectually honest. When talking about things like miscarriage/accidents we are talking about something different from abortion and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Correction. When talking about things like miscarriage/accidents we are talking about something different from an on-demand-abortion and it is disingenuous to suggest there was any intellectual dishonesty on my part.
Not sure what you think it proves/means?
It means there is at least one medically necessarily reason for abortion.
She easily could have been treated/helped, but those who treated her were ignorant of the law. Some mistakenly told her they couldnâ€™t help her because abortion was illegal.
That's no mistake. It was illegal, this one case caused a change in the law in 2013, which was then further liberalised in 2018.
However, they would not have needed to perform an abortion to help her. A very tragic situation and one the Pro Aborts like to exploit. Unfortunately it is based on inaccurate information. Those treating this woman acted negligently.
Because managing the live threatening consequences when it could have been easily avoided with an abortion, doesn't fit the "medically necessarily" criteria to you? You have some nerve claiming to be pro-woman.
Uuummm . . no, it is quite clear.
Okay, I mean not clear other than your moral judgement.
I beg to differ:
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger
Thanks for proving my point: The purpose as stated is being merciful, the killing is merely a means to that end. You might argue that there is a hidden agenda at play here, but the quote supports my case.
I am afraid then you deny science and are ignorant of the facts. All scientists agree an embryo is a human life. It isnâ€™t even up for debate. What exactly do you think is inside the woman? A dog? An amoeba?
No, I think it's a human life. Not sure what exactly you think I am denying here. Sounds to me like you are appealing to scientism and not science.
So, itâ€™s a baby if you want it, but not if you donâ€™t?
No, it's worth keeping if the woman wants it, but not if she doesnâ€™t. Does that equate to the same thing as "a baby if you want it, but not if you donâ€™t" to you?
One person does not get to decide if another person is a human being or not.
Right, but that's moot since a population of people do get to decide if fetuses deserve human rights or not. Thatâ€™s how it works.
Donâ€™t you want to be on the right side of history?
Sure, the question is why don't you? You know full well your anti-abortion stance is going the same way anti-suffragism did, don't you? The anti-abortion movement is very much a countermovement in response to feminism.
Allowing abortion is THE human rights issue of our day. An entire class of people are being exterminated because someone else finds them inconvenient.
Start you journey to the right side of history today by abandoning such emotive language. Appeal to emotion is a fallacy and it's not gonna work on logical people like myself.
People are actually suggesting it is even now ok to kill a baby once the baby is born. Donâ€™t be surprised when they come for you next. Too weak? Buh by. Unwanted? Buh by. Too ignorant? Buh by. Too costly? Buh by. Too old? Buh by. Wrong color? Buh by. Wrong sex? Buh by. But donâ€™t worry. It is for our own good. We know best. We are making the world a better a place. As long as you have what I want, you can stay. Now just relax . . . this wonâ€™t hurt a bit . . .
That sounded coercive. We are liberals so that's not gonna happen if we can help it.